|
rudatron posted:Gradient descent has real problems with data sets that don't pay nice. I think Monte Carlo is actually the more 'generalizable' algorithm. Not empty quoting. I'm working through TensorFlow tutorials and this is a massive issue with many varieties of data sets I've been working with. WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jun 4, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:*Also because my partner kept on talking about babies as state machine robots or something. yessssssss
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Eripsa posted:yessssssss You realize they were making fun of you, not agreeing with you, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Edit-- I'm cranky from being in the sun all day, it was lighthearted ribbing.
Count Thrashula fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Jun 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Arent technological symbiote like the Trill from star trek more likely than ful machine conversion?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:Edit-- I'm cranky from being in the sun all day, it was lighthearted ribbing. I think if you read Eripsa as saying "you could think of babies as state machine robots, in a way" then it seems more palatable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Arent technological symbiote like the Trill from star trek more likely than ful machine conversion? We're pretty near to being technological symbiotes as it is, so I would say yes. I also support this because I can't get my petty human brain to get over the fact that a perfect digital representation of me isn't actually me. I like living.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
BardoTheConsumer posted:We're pretty near to being technological symbiotes as it is, so I would say yes. I also support this because I can't get my petty human brain to get over the fact that a perfect digital representation of me isn't actually me. I like living. your continuity is a practical illusion, according to Special Relativity. get your head around that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
That is absolutely not what special relativity implies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Soon the voices in my head will be real and my friends and able to hack my enemies sandwich rewards membership.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
Broccoli Cat posted:your continuity is a practical illusion, according to Special Relativity. While the human body/brain is obviously continuously changing, it at least creates the illusion of continuity. What changes occur generally occur slowly enough that you can still remember your previous recent state. If a big change was suddenly introduced, though, it would be basically the same as ending the previous you. It's sort of like how if you suddenly moved your mind back in time into your body from 10 years ago, you would basically be killing off your previous self, despite technically being the same person. The amount of change that had occurred during that extended time period makes the illusion of continuity break. And, as another poster was mentioning, it's important to realize how dramatic a change would have to be made to the brain to make it capable of working in a significantly different environment. As they mentioned, the brain and body are both part of the same system, and you would, at the very least, need to simulate the body in order to keep the human mind working correctly (and this would obviously place limitations on any sort of transhuman modifications you wanted to make). At the end of the day, getting the brain to work without also being part of the greater system of the human body would require making such dramatic changes that you're effectively creating a brand new individual. Also, there's the issue I think others have mentioned that any sort of upload would effectively be just copying and pasting your mind somewhere else; the you from before the upload wouldn't actually benefit from it. Even if the new uploaded mind perceives thing as if they were you, from the original you's perspective nothing would have changed (or you'd be braindead depending upon how such an upload worked). It seems to me that, if people are really seeking some sort of immortality, biological immortality is far more likely than some sort of "uploading our brains into computers/robots" thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Oh no not the illusion. How will we ever pass the technological hurdle of fooling people into thinking things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Well that becomes important when you're the one who dies, to maintain the illusion. Continuity is important if you actually want to, you know, not die.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well that becomes important when you're the one who dies, to maintain the illusion. Continuity is important if you actually want to, you know, not die. On the other hand, some people want to be able to keep talking to mommy after she kicks the bucket so a digital brain copy suits them just fine. Sucks for meatbag mommy, but at least Junior gets to keep being told he's a good boy in her voice. Kerning Chameleon fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Jun 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
Oh cool we're at the part of the thread where we argue about copying brains and whether the copy is really "you" or whatever? Has anyone mentioned the no-cloning theorem yet? I'm curious what the thread's thoughts on it are. It seems to me that any transfer of a mind to some other substrate, that could even theoretically result in two copies of the same mind, is bogus (that is, "same mind" according to the internal logic of the copying method - whereas the no-cloning theorem states that this is impossible). This doesn't entirely rule out copying a mind into a datagram for cold storage, so long as the datagram is limited to a single read by the laws of physics (i.e. it's not good enough to just read it once then delete the file or whatever). It does rule out e.g. encoding a mind as an ordinary binary datagram, and I think it should by extension rule out transferring a human mind into anything that looks remotely like a modern computer. I haven't thought about that last part too much yet however, and there may be some loophole I haven't considered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 10:10
|
|
|
It's absolutely irrelevant, and a misuse of QM to apply it here. What is it with this thread and abusing mainstream science, first relativity and now this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 10:17
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I don't know if you are trying to say something about thinking processes or drugs. Re hallucinogens, caffeine generally only induces hallucination - sensory experience of something that is not there - at very high doses (and sleep deprivation). If caffeine at any dose is making you hallucinate, this is something to mention to your physician. The thing about caffeine was mostly tongue in cheek, and not relevant to the point either way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 10:19
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's absolutely irrelevant, and a misuse of QM to apply it here. To be clear, I'm not saying that a copy can't behave, to any degree we can detect or that matters, like the original. Mainly I'm saying that whenever there is a copy there is an original. So you can't create two minds from one, where it is impossible even in principle to distinguish the original from the copy. That seems relevant to the discussion at hand and if your response is just going to be limited to 'lol no' then gently caress off and let someone else take it up. If I'm actually wrong about this I would like to know, and I'd like to know why.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
The no cloning theorem applies to a particles wavefunction - that's not relevant to the information that makes you you, because that's not stored in the exact configuration of a particles wavefunction, but as chemical/electrical potentials. Quantum theory can be counter intuitive, but they way in which it is counter intuitive is often misused to justify spiritualism/dualism, when it does nothing of the sort. It's subtler than that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
maybe death is actually important and meaningful and sadbrains death anxiety is a core force for evil in the world?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
Okay, how about you die, and everyone else doesn't. It'll be for our sins, or some poo poo. I dunno, whatever makes you happy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 11:36
|
|
|
Fine by me I guess. Memento Mori.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 11:46
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:Oh no not the illusion. How will we ever pass the technological hurdle of fooling people into thinking things. we must invent Photoshop, so we can create convincing data like this 
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Okay, how about you die, and everyone else doesn't. It'll be for our sins, or some poo poo. I dunno, whatever makes you happy. Nobody would be crazy enough to believe that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The former. I was pointing out that unless they're being very disciplined this is generally how people arrive at conclusions. And here "disciplined" really often means just that you're not making any huge leaps of logic all at once, but rather considering a handful of rather mundane hypotheses based on what you already know, figuring out which one is right, and then iterating on that. It's rare indeed for a human being to just start with a set of premises and let their reasoning take them wherever it may with truly no bias - it's not unheard of but it doesn't come naturally to us. It's all good. I'm a researcher who studies hallucinogens so once in a while I feel compelled to point out science facts. That said, you are definitely right about thinking. I started keeping track of my hypotheses in grad school and finding out how frequently wrong I am. (It's often!)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The no cloning theorem applies to a particles wavefunction - that's not relevant to the information that makes you you, because that's not stored in the exact configuration of a particles wavefunction, but as chemical/electrical potentials. Unless you're the type who thinks things "stop being quantum" after a certain level of scale (in which case, well, lol), then no: the no-cloning theorem does not stop being relevant past a certain point. It is a restriction on copying any system with perfect fidelity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
rudatron posted:It's absolutely irrelevant, and a misuse of QM to apply it here. it irks autists, providing amusement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Thing is, you can't actually measure a particles wavefunction directly, because if you try, it will collapse into an eigenstate of your measuring operator (more loosely, the wavefunction has 'many values' of whatever it is that you're measuring, that it could give, and the act of measuring forces it to adopt 'one value'). So even if have an 'imperfect' clone (which is allowed), you have no way of distinguishing between the two, so long as the imperfect clone adopts reasonable values. So it's not, in principle, possible to distinguish the two. But that's just individual particles, and it's not clear that yourself, whatever makes you you, really has anything to do with wavefunctions. And in so far as we do live in a quantum universe, is it necessary to copy perfectly the 'substrate', to copy whatever structure manifests as consciousness? I don't see why. And I mean QM is nice and all, but yeah, as you approach the macro scale, the dynamics of your system should approach that of classical+relativistic mechanics, mathematically (the correspondence principle). The probability of you quantum tunneling through the floor is so minuscule that you can effectively discard it. So if we're talking about neurons and what not, you're not really going to have to worry about stuff like the no-cloning theorem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Oh cool we're at the part of the thread where we argue about copying brains and whether the copy is really "you" or whatever? Has anyone mentioned the no-cloning theorem yet? I'm curious what the thread's thoughts on it are. It seems to me that any transfer of a mind to some other substrate, that could even theoretically result in two copies of the same mind, is bogus (that is, "same mind" according to the internal logic of the copying method - whereas the no-cloning theorem states that this is impossible). This doesn't entirely rule out copying a mind into a datagram for cold storage, so long as the datagram is limited to a single read by the laws of physics (i.e. it's not good enough to just read it once then delete the file or whatever). It does rule out e.g. encoding a mind as an ordinary binary datagram, and I think it should by extension rule out transferring a human mind into anything that looks remotely like a modern computer. I haven't thought about that last part too much yet however, and there may be some loophole I haven't considered. if you fall and hit your head hard enough that you awake speaking broken Mandarin, are you still you? no, you are clearly not the you of the past, in a very obvious way, because at a supraquantum level, you have been generated moment-to-moment, when the supraquantum, and deterministic, universe came into existence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It seems to me that, if people are really seeking some sort of immortality, biological immortality is far more likely than some sort of "uploading our brains into computers/robots" thing. Not to mention there are already people working on that: http://www.calicolabs.com/ DoctorWhat posted:maybe death is actually important and meaningful and sadbrains death anxiety is a core force for evil in the world? Or maybe that's just a bunch of mindless "natural law" claptrap and death doesn't do anything other than make you stop living.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Every time you sleep is a break in continuity. Falling asleep is basically suicide 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Blockade posted:Every time you sleep is a break in continuity. What made you think "you" stop happening when you sleep?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Mulva posted:What made you think "you" stop happening when you sleep? I mean, personally I perceive a pretty massive break in continuity going to sleep and as the result of forgetting much of my life over time. It's not particularly offputting. Unless you're positing that there's some magical inner knowledge that doesn't actually stop when you sleep or forget stuff which seems unlikely tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Unless you're positing that there's some magical inner knowledge that doesn't actually stop when you sleep or forget stuff which seems unlikely tbh. Putting aside the unsettled issue of lucid dreaming, the fact is every part of your mind and body is still working while you are asleep. It's why people can incorporate sounds and smells around their body into their dreaming and remember them upon waking. poo poo is still happening, "you" aren't flicked off when sleep happens. Sure you have an altered state of consciousness, but gently caress, tons of things alter our state of consciousness. Why does sleep get a special place, because that tiny iceberg floating out of the sea of the unconscious that is the voice in your head people think of as "them" isn't quite as clear?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Putting aside the unsettled issue of lucid dreaming, the fact is every part of your mind and body is still working while you are asleep. It's why people can incorporate sounds and smells around their body into their dreaming and remember them upon waking. poo poo is still happening, "you" aren't flicked off when sleep happens. Sure you have an altered state of consciousness, but gently caress, tons of things alter our state of consciousness. Why does sleep get a special place, because that tiny iceberg floating out of the sea of the unconscious that is the voice in your head people think of as "them" isn't quite as clear? Well I mean, while I'm awake I generally keep track of the sequence of the day well enough. Sleep is the most common and regular thing that disrupts my sense of continuity. Possibly because I don't dream 95% of the time so it's literally just a chunk of missing time that makes it hard to remember things that happened before it. I mean obviously I retain long term things like how to do my job and stuff but I definitely wouldn't call the feeling of waking up continuous with the previous day. It sure as hell feels like I stopped being there for the duration and things before it are indistinct and often hard to recall and I tend to wake up feeling different from when I went to sleep for no discernible reason. I don't think there's anything else that happens to me as a rule that causes the same effect. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Mulva posted:What made you think "you" stop happening when you sleep? the inability to experience the control of one's fate in the practical illusion of continuity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 12:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
I wonder how long it would take for people to hack brains while they're getting copied, and then how long it would take to regulate that after some guy gets his soul DDOSed by a billion copies of a mind forced to do so Basically we should all become machines so everyone that fell for it gets constantly screwed over by the inevitable tech problems. Meanwhile the guys that couldn't afford it go on with their lives
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2017 02:05
|
|
